# Qworld: Question-Specific Evaluation Criteria for LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23522 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23522/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 38 of its 56 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 38)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [MMMU: A Massive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark for Expert AGI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16502/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)
- [WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04770/) (2024)
- [FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10928/) (2023)
- [Long-form factuality in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18802/) (2024)
- [InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03601/) (2024)
- [OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07743/) (2025)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [Learning to Plan & Reason for Evaluation with Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18099/) (2025)
- [JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00050/) (2025)
- [J1: Incentivizing Thinking in LLM-as-a-Judge via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10320/) (2025)
- [TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03608/) (2024)
- [Rethinking Rubric Generation for Improving LLM Judge and Reward Modeling for Open-ended Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05125/) (2026)
- [TxAgent: An AI Agent for Therapeutic Reasoning Across a Universe of Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10970/) (2025)
- [An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20430/) (2025)
- [RubricHub: A Comprehensive and Highly Discriminative Rubric Dataset via Automated Coarse-to-Fine Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08430/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08625/) (2026)
- [DEEPRUBRIC: Evidence-Tree Rubric Supervision for Efficient Reinforcement Learning of Deep Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.17029/) (2026)
- [Rubrics on Trial: Evolving Rubrics from a Single Query via Synthetic Pairwise Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.15092/) (2026)
- [REVEAL: A Rubric-Guided Agent for Explicit Evidence Sufficiency Verificationin Long-Video Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08612/) (2026)
- [RubricArmor: Adversarial Evolution Improves LLM-Based Rubric Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05308/) (2026)
- [Learning to Evaluate Before Improving: Automatic Rubric Induction for Automatic Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.31076/) (2026)
- [FinAutoRubric: Expert-Guided Automatic Rubric Generation for Evaluating Financial Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.35744/) (2026)
- [From Structure to Validity: Mechanism-Guided Generation and Refinement of LLM Rubrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13375/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended questions is difficult because response quality depends on the question's context. Binary scores and static rubrics fail to capture these context-dependent requirements. Existing methods define criteria at the dataset level or generate them in a single pass, which limits their ability to explore the evaluation space implied by each question. We introduce One-Question-One-World (Qworld), a method that generates question-specific evaluation criteria using a recursive expansion tree. Given a question, Qworld decomposes it into scenarios, perspectives, and fine-grained binary criteria through hierarchical and horizontal expansion. The resulting criteria specify what a high-quality answer must address for that question. On HealthBench, Qworld covers 89% of expert-authored criteria and generates 79% novel criteria validated by human experts. Experts rate Qworld criteria higher in insight and granularity than those produced by prior methods. When applied to 11 frontier LLMs on HealthBench and Humanity's Last Exam, Qworld reveals capability differences in dimensions such as long-term impact, equity, error handling, and interdisciplinary reasoning that coarse rubrics do not capture. By generating evaluation criteria for each question, Qworld enables assessment of LLM responses that is tailored to the question rather than based on fixed task-level criteria.